Celtient wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:52 pm
Her motive being?
I'm unsure of her motive but how about this for a rumour. All conjecture of course, but wee Jimmy has a male partner and they have grown apart somewhat. Wee Jimmy has bought Judy Murray's old house and is in the process of setting up shop with her girlfriend. This girlfriend is one of the nine accusers. This has not yet come into the public domain, but Alex Salmond is set to reveal it in some way, because there is a super-injunction in place against making Nicola Sturgeon's private life public.
Is it true, I have no idea, but it was told to me by someone unconnected to anyone up in Scotland where its not much of a secret - evidently.
Just my opinion Maxy, but these women should be named and shamed, there seems to have been a conspiracy of some sort.
Not sure I agree they should be named until there are proper legal grounds for doing so. As in they get prosecuted for conspiracy/perjury etc.
It would send the wrong signal to women who have been assaulted or raped and could prevent them seeking justice.
Yeah, I don’t disagree Max, men like Weinstein are scum and deserve all that await him in prison, but these women are also scum and hopefully Scottish justice looks into whether they conspired or not to ruin an innocent mans life.
Celtient wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:52 pm
Her motive being?
I'm unsure of her motive but how about this for a rumour. All conjecture of course, but wee Jimmy has a male partner and they have grown apart somewhat. Wee Jimmy has bought Judy Murray's old house and is in the process of setting up shop with her girlfriend. This girlfriend is one of the nine accusers. This has not yet come into the public domain, but Alex Salmond is set to reveal it in some way, because there is a super-injunction in place against making Nicola Sturgeon's private life public.
Is it true, I have no idea, but it was told to me by someone unconnected to anyone up in Scotland where its not much of a secret - evidently.
NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:00 pm
Christ on a bike.
Why the questions?
I've provided you with the link. If you are that interested, read about the damn thing!
How lazy are people these days. I give up.
people post their opinion. Don’t make it wrong or right, but it’s good to be cautious. flat earth society on the web, don’t make it true.
I’ve no views on Salmond one way or the other. But sadly mud sticks and he will forever be tainted by people who feel no smoke without fire but just not enough proof. Sad, not guilty should be the end of it. Damage has been done.
NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:00 pm
Christ on a bike.
Why the questions?
I've provided you with the link. If you are that interested, read about the damn thing!
How lazy are people these days. I give up.
people post their opinion. Don’t make it wrong or right, but it’s good to be cautious. flat earth society on the web, don’t make it true.
As far as I'm aware, the Flat Earth Society were not in the spectator gallery listening to 'the evidence'; during the Defence aspect of the case.
Craig Murray was; so I'm therefore just a tad more convinced believing his overview of events; rather than the lying, biased MSM/BBC.
Of course people can make opinions. However, asking pointless questions that were already covered within Craig Murray's superb coverage, are two completely different things.
NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:00 pm
Christ on a bike.
Why the questions?
I've provided you with the link. If you are that interested, read about the damn thing!
How lazy are people these days. I give up.
people post their opinion. Don’t make it wrong or right, but it’s good to be cautious. flat earth society on the web, don’t make it true.
As far as I'm aware, the Flat Earth Society were not in the spectator gallery listening to 'the evidence'; during the Defence aspect of the case.
Craig Murray was; so I'm therefore just a tad more convinced believing his overview of events; rather than the lying, biased MSM/BBC.
Of course people can make opinions. However, asking pointless questions that were already covered within Craig Murray's superb coverage, are two completely different things.
People take a view then interpret things to support That view. We all do it. To believe otherwise is naive in my opinion.
You only have to read the views of people who watch Orient games, there watching them in person, then see how they differ. For example, a player is liked by one and disliked by another, their view on his performance will differ accordingly. We all know that.
Whilst any persons views are interesting it’s dangerous to consider them the sole arbiter of fact. Do we believe everything in the Daily Mail, Sun, Gusrdian, Mirror etc. Nah.
